You are inaccurate when you say "Damages are based on whether or not it was intentional" and dead wrong when you say "I can host music on my computer all I want; until someone downloads it from me no infringement took place."
Copyright operates on STRICT liability. You will incur statutory damages for a copyright violation regardless of your intent (if you're thinking of the "innocent infringer" defense, the judge only reduces damages, and anyway it pretty much would never apply to a sophisticated defender like Google.)
Once you make a copy of copyrighted music without authorization, you could be liable for violating the reproduction right. Now on a practical level, if you just copied it to a hard drive that you unplug and put on a shelf for the next 20 years, nobody's going to be able to sue you.
If you put the same music files on a publicly accessible server, you could additionally be liable for violating the right to distribute, whether or not a single copy was ever downloaded.
Your statement is like saying if you made 1000 copies of the Lion King and put it on a shelf in your store, you wouldn't be liable for infringement unless someone actually bought one of your bootlegs. Now even if the copies were in your home, if there were a reason to raid your home (say if a search warrant were issued because you are a notorious bootlegger), you'd still be liable for violating the reproduction right. Now, no judge is likely to issue a search warrant for a fishing expedition into people's homes unless there's a very good reason to think they're engaged in serious violations.
A more accurate statement would be "I can host music on my computer all I want; until someone downloads it from me, no one's likely to sue me for the infringement I've already committed."
Google cannot escape liability simply because only one person or 100 people downloaded an otherwise protected work. The number of people who downloaded it is completely irrelevant to base level liability, as is whether those people were internal or external to Google.
For your two blah blah blah posts, you need to read up on actual court cases, not just what the law says. Without proof that any downloading took place, there cannot be any damages assessed to a person by the RIAA.
Of course, just like you, the RIAA thinks making available = infringement. It doesn't, and court case after court case has proven this. That's why mediasentry collects a log of those who share on torrents to collect proof of infringement.
Same case with bootleggers that sell actual copies of "Lion King" (what the heck are you like 12?); unless they actually sell something in front of the authorities they cannot be arrested.
That was not obvious to me because the files being hard to find hasn't been my argument. ...
It's a refreshing change from the typical classless Google/Android advocate that we get here that you're doing your best to try to come across as reasonable, but you're just talking in circles, and backpeddling when your arguments don't work out. However, your argument was in fact that the files were hard to find, tucked away in a little backwater, wrapped up in a zip file, who would ever even notice them. And, it's an argument that carries no weight whatsoever. The body was hidden, but it was found.
The rest of it, that they supposedly, apparently, possibly weren't being used for anything important is not only a moot point, but entirely beside the point.
In reference to I believe one of the arguments Google was making was that some of the files were only used on internal test devices and were not distributed to external parties.
You mentioned that even if the only people who Google distributed the code to were bloggers who just analyzed it for copyright issues that Google was guilty. I agree, but in this scenario what financial damage did this do to Oracle and what did Google gain from the infringement? This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.
Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP. When a corporation spends millions of dollars on developing a product, it has every right to protect it from being stolen. Oracle has every right to protect its innovation, Java. If Google accepted the license and the license prohibited distribution of the code, then Oracle has every right to go after Google.
I'm just talking about the 37 files referenced in the Apple Insider article.
"My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit."
If these files weren't used significantly to create Android how would their existence significantly affect Oracle's income stream from J2ME pre and post android? I'm not seeing the correlation between these files in particular and decreased income stream from Oracle. Now I can see Google being found liable for their existence in their repository, but for these files in particular I don't see how the damages would be more than 7 digits at the very most. It's my opinion on the relative insignificance of these files which caused me to post in this string. I have not expressed any opinion on the broader Oracle vs Google suit.
I was giving an example of what Oracle may try to claim as damages, whether actual or not that is the scope that they'll ask a court to look into.
Now the same files have been found in the repositories of some Android licensees:-
Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP.
Patent trolls don't make product...so Oracle can't be one.
However, I wonder just how much of a silly grin Ellison was sporting when he bought Sun.
Given Gosling's comments suing Google was the plan from day one so Oracle's lawyers must think there's a very good shot of a Google payday in their future. Maybe not 100% sure but pretty danged close if you're going to pony up 7 billion for a mostly failed company.
Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
It's a refreshing change from the typical classless Google/Android advocate that we get here that you're doing your best to try to come across as reasonable, but you're just talking in circles, and backpeddling when your arguments don't work out. However, your argument was in fact that the files were hard to find, tucked away in a little backwater, wrapped up in a zip file, who would ever even notice them. And, it's an argument that carries no weight whatsoever. The body was hidden, but it was found.
The rest of it, that they supposedly, apparently, possibly weren't being used for anything important is not only a moot point, but entirely beside the point.
I believe I understand your argument. I think we can agree to disagree on this. I'm sure there are many things I'll agree with you on in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup
Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP. When a corporation spends millions of dollars on developing a product, it has every right to protect it from being stolen. Oracle has every right to protect its innovation, Java. If Google accepted the license and the license prohibited distribution of the code, then Oracle has every right to go after Google.
I backed off of my statement calling Oracle a "patent troll". I've included my quote below. Calling Oracle a patent troll was a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
I shouldn't have said that Oracle looks like a patent troll here. As yet Oracle hasn't included these particular files in their lawsuit. I don't know if Oracle's lawyers are going to make a big deal about these files at all, maybe they won't.
Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
I'm wondering why they aren't using the Psystar vs Apple ruling as an example, it's a bit more current than Apple vs Microsoft.
Finally, you seem to have gotten the point that *liability* for copyright violation has nothing to do with the "extent" of the infringement. But then you go and continue pulling stuff out of...
Let me explain how the process works (as opposed to how YOU think it should work):
Was there a violation of one or more of the exclusive rights in the copyrighted work?
If yes, then unless one of the limitations on the exclusive rights (i.e. fair use, first sale etc.) applies, the court finds that copyright infringement has occurred, liability is established and ONLY then does the issue of damages come up.
Damages would have nothing to do with the "importance" of the copied files or how they were used; though perhaps a court might look at the economic value of the infringing work (i.e. Android, if it indeed contains infringing code). However, for statutory damages, that examination is not necessary at all.
Your right I should have used economic value instead of important in that statement. I understand that statutory damages for each violated work up to $150,000 per violation could be assigned. I should have included that as well.
Android does pride itself as the first to have "Copy and Paste" in a mobile OS.
Google's new motto: "CTRL-C, CTRL-V"
I suspect Google knew they were walking a thin line and the real issue is Google thought they could get away with all this because what were the chances Sun would do anything about it. Then Oracle bought Sun...oooops....
I suspect Google knew they were walking a thin line and the real issue is Google thought they could get away with all this because what were the chances Sun would do anything about it. Then Oracle bought Sun...oooops....
i think they thought that AND had the notion that Chrome OS was the future and they would ditch android.....EPIC FAIL!
and watch apple's main competition dissolve? Suppose it would be interesting to see how little apple feel they have to innovate without any competition on their heels.
Anyone thinking there would be no effect, do you really think wifi hotspot would be coming to iOS if it wasn't on every android phone under the sun already?
Oracle has a long history of opposing software patents. However, they are the current law of the land and Google did blatantly disregard them with Android.
I'm not huge believer in software patents in their current form either, but Google deserves to get their ass handed to them, and Oracle is just the company to do so.
Just honestly answer this question - if Google thought about doing Android after Oracle bought Sun, do you think they would have gone down the same path?
Let's remember guys - none of you are hot shot patent lawyers let alone judges. Your say on this is completely worthless. It is all biased opinion and conjecture.
Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.
The emperor indeed has no clothes.
Here's some interesting points this discussion has made me consider. As Google's cloud computing initiatives are pitched more and more to businesses, what are the contractual ramifications? If I move my company to Gmail, and Google gets sued and an injection gets issued against them what happens to my data? Yup, I can move my email to another provider, but what about my historical data? How do I get it back?
What about other Google products? Or other cloud providers? What about bankruptcy? Not a problem (hopefully) for Google, but other smaller cloud providers? You may have rights to your data but if a company ceases operations suddenly how long could it take to get your data back, if ever?
Ugh, the things that keep me up at night these days Having gone through a bankrupcty with a hardware manufacturer we had contracts with there are unfulfilled orders we will never be "made whole" on as well as machines returned for warranty repair we will never see again. Ugh, I see the need for some sort of data escrow arrangement or other overhead that starts to negate the "cloud" advantages...
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.
Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.
Comments
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...10122054409107
This was a good (but lengthy) read on the recent revelations over this (alleged) infringement. This thread has been fascinating too.
That just made the whole thing a lot more grey and murky than it already was.
You are inaccurate when you say "Damages are based on whether or not it was intentional" and dead wrong when you say "I can host music on my computer all I want; until someone downloads it from me no infringement took place."
Copyright operates on STRICT liability. You will incur statutory damages for a copyright violation regardless of your intent (if you're thinking of the "innocent infringer" defense, the judge only reduces damages, and anyway it pretty much would never apply to a sophisticated defender like Google.)
Once you make a copy of copyrighted music without authorization, you could be liable for violating the reproduction right. Now on a practical level, if you just copied it to a hard drive that you unplug and put on a shelf for the next 20 years, nobody's going to be able to sue you.
If you put the same music files on a publicly accessible server, you could additionally be liable for violating the right to distribute, whether or not a single copy was ever downloaded.
Your statement is like saying if you made 1000 copies of the Lion King and put it on a shelf in your store, you wouldn't be liable for infringement unless someone actually bought one of your bootlegs. Now even if the copies were in your home, if there were a reason to raid your home (say if a search warrant were issued because you are a notorious bootlegger), you'd still be liable for violating the reproduction right. Now, no judge is likely to issue a search warrant for a fishing expedition into people's homes unless there's a very good reason to think they're engaged in serious violations.
A more accurate statement would be "I can host music on my computer all I want; until someone downloads it from me, no one's likely to sue me for the infringement I've already committed."
Google cannot escape liability simply because only one person or 100 people downloaded an otherwise protected work. The number of people who downloaded it is completely irrelevant to base level liability, as is whether those people were internal or external to Google.
For your two blah blah blah posts, you need to read up on actual court cases, not just what the law says. Without proof that any downloading took place, there cannot be any damages assessed to a person by the RIAA.
Of course, just like you, the RIAA thinks making available = infringement. It doesn't, and court case after court case has proven this. That's why mediasentry collects a log of those who share on torrents to collect proof of infringement.
Same case with bootleggers that sell actual copies of "Lion King" (what the heck are you like 12?); unless they actually sell something in front of the authorities they cannot be arrested.
That was not obvious to me because the files being hard to find hasn't been my argument. ...
It's a refreshing change from the typical classless Google/Android advocate that we get here that you're doing your best to try to come across as reasonable, but you're just talking in circles, and backpeddling when your arguments don't work out. However, your argument was in fact that the files were hard to find, tucked away in a little backwater, wrapped up in a zip file, who would ever even notice them. And, it's an argument that carries no weight whatsoever. The body was hidden, but it was found.
The rest of it, that they supposedly, apparently, possibly weren't being used for anything important is not only a moot point, but entirely beside the point.
No worries on missing the distribute part.
In reference to
You mentioned that even if the only people who Google distributed the code to were bloggers who just analyzed it for copyright issues that Google was guilty. I agree, but in this scenario what financial damage did this do to Oracle and what did Google gain from the infringement? This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.
Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP. When a corporation spends millions of dollars on developing a product, it has every right to protect it from being stolen. Oracle has every right to protect its innovation, Java. If Google accepted the license and the license prohibited distribution of the code, then Oracle has every right to go after Google.
I'm just talking about the 37 files referenced in the Apple Insider article.
"My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit."
If these files weren't used significantly to create Android how would their existence significantly affect Oracle's income stream from J2ME pre and post android? I'm not seeing the correlation between these files in particular and decreased income stream from Oracle. Now I can see Google being found liable for their existence in their repository, but for these files in particular I don't see how the damages would be more than 7 digits at the very most. It's my opinion on the relative insignificance of these files which caused me to post in this string. I have not expressed any opinion on the broader Oracle vs Google suit.
I was giving an example of what Oracle may try to claim as damages, whether actual or not that is the scope that they'll ask a court to look into.
Now the same files have been found in the repositories of some Android licensees:-
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...te-oracle.html
Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP.
Patent trolls don't make product...so Oracle can't be one.
However, I wonder just how much of a silly grin Ellison was sporting when he bought Sun.
Given Gosling's comments suing Google was the plan from day one so Oracle's lawyers must think there's a very good shot of a Google payday in their future. Maybe not 100% sure but pretty danged close if you're going to pony up 7 billion for a mostly failed company.
Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
It's a refreshing change from the typical classless Google/Android advocate that we get here that you're doing your best to try to come across as reasonable, but you're just talking in circles, and backpeddling when your arguments don't work out. However, your argument was in fact that the files were hard to find, tucked away in a little backwater, wrapped up in a zip file, who would ever even notice them. And, it's an argument that carries no weight whatsoever. The body was hidden, but it was found.
The rest of it, that they supposedly, apparently, possibly weren't being used for anything important is not only a moot point, but entirely beside the point.
I believe I understand your argument. I think we can agree to disagree on this. I'm sure there are many things I'll agree with you on in the future.
Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP. When a corporation spends millions of dollars on developing a product, it has every right to protect it from being stolen. Oracle has every right to protect its innovation, Java. If Google accepted the license and the license prohibited distribution of the code, then Oracle has every right to go after Google.
I backed off of my statement calling Oracle a "patent troll". I've included my quote below. Calling Oracle a patent troll was a mistake.
I shouldn't have said that Oracle looks like a patent troll here. As yet Oracle hasn't included these particular files in their lawsuit. I don't know if Oracle's lawyers are going to make a big deal about these files at all, maybe they won't.
Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
I'm wondering why they aren't using the Psystar vs Apple ruling as an example, it's a bit more current than Apple vs Microsoft.
Finally, you seem to have gotten the point that *liability* for copyright violation has nothing to do with the "extent" of the infringement. But then you go and continue pulling stuff out of...
Let me explain how the process works (as opposed to how YOU think it should work):
Was there a violation of one or more of the exclusive rights in the copyrighted work?
If yes, then unless one of the limitations on the exclusive rights (i.e. fair use, first sale etc.) applies, the court finds that copyright infringement has occurred, liability is established and ONLY then does the issue of damages come up.
Damages would have nothing to do with the "importance" of the copied files or how they were used; though perhaps a court might look at the economic value of the infringing work (i.e. Android, if it indeed contains infringing code). However, for statutory damages, that examination is not necessary at all.
Your right I should have used economic value instead of important in that statement. I understand that statutory damages for each violated work up to $150,000 per violation could be assigned. I should have included that as well.
Android does pride itself as the first to have "Copy and Paste" in a mobile OS.
Google's new motto: "CTRL-C, CTRL-V"
I suspect Google knew they were walking a thin line and the real issue is Google thought they could get away with all this because what were the chances Sun would do anything about it. Then Oracle bought Sun...oooops....
I suspect Google knew they were walking a thin line and the real issue is Google thought they could get away with all this because what were the chances Sun would do anything about it. Then Oracle bought Sun...oooops....
i think they thought that AND had the notion that Chrome OS was the future and they would ditch android.....EPIC FAIL!
PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
so? aren't apple doucheboys biased? yes.
Even if it does Google can easily pay it without charging for Android.
Care to share with us the judgement fee for infringement that your crystal ball is predicting to verify your claim that they can "easily" pay it?
Google may be big but they aren't invulnerable.
Royalties not enough... I say bring it down!
and watch apple's main competition dissolve? Suppose it would be interesting to see how little apple feel they have to innovate without any competition on their heels.
Anyone thinking there would be no effect, do you really think wifi hotspot would be coming to iOS if it wasn't on every android phone under the sun already?
And if you are in favor of Oracle, you are in favor of software patents
Talk about people who don't know what they are talking about. Take a look at this:
http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/...ent_oracle.htm
Oracle has a long history of opposing software patents. However, they are the current law of the land and Google did blatantly disregard them with Android.
I'm not huge believer in software patents in their current form either, but Google deserves to get their ass handed to them, and Oracle is just the company to do so.
Just honestly answer this question - if Google thought about doing Android after Oracle bought Sun, do you think they would have gone down the same path?
Your answer will be very telling...
Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.
The emperor indeed has no clothes.
Here's some interesting points this discussion has made me consider. As Google's cloud computing initiatives are pitched more and more to businesses, what are the contractual ramifications? If I move my company to Gmail, and Google gets sued and an injection gets issued against them what happens to my data? Yup, I can move my email to another provider, but what about my historical data? How do I get it back?
What about other Google products? Or other cloud providers? What about bankruptcy? Not a problem (hopefully) for Google, but other smaller cloud providers? You may have rights to your data but if a company ceases operations suddenly how long could it take to get your data back, if ever?
Ugh, the things that keep me up at night these days
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.
Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.